The applicant appealed the order of the Rostov Regional Court dismissing his complaint against the order of the Deputy Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation to extradite him for criminal prosecution to the law enforcement authorities of the Republic of Belarus. The applicant was a stateless individual and was in the process of applying for Russian nationality. Later, the applicant filed an appeal to the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. The Judicial Board of the Supreme Court (Criminal Division) of the Russian Federation upheld the decision of the lower court.
- Article 56 of the Minsk Convention on Legal Assistance and Legal Relations in Civil, Family and Criminal Matters dated 22 January 1993 which entered into legal force for the Russian Federation on 10 December 1994 (the Minsk Convention)
- Articles 389.20, 389.28, and Chapter 54, in particular part 9 of Article 463 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation.
At the time of the current court proceedings, the applicant was under investigation by the law enforcement agencies of the Republic of Belarus for allegedly committing a large-scale theft of property belonging to Victim A in January 2015 in Minsk. The applicant left the Republic of Belarus at some point after the alleged event happened. Since then, he has been wanted by the Prosecutor General’s Office of the Republic of Belarus.
The Prosecutor General's Office located the applicant in the territory of the Russian Federation. It filed a request to the Prosecutor General's Office of the Russian Federation to extradite the applicant to the Republic of Belarus to face criminal investigation and charges for the alleged offense.
On 9 March 2017, the Deputy Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation issued an order to extradite the applicant for criminal prosecution to the Republic of Belarus. The applicant disagreed with the order and appealed to the Rostov Regional Court. The court rejected the applicant's appeal. The applicant appealed this decision to the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation.
The Rostov Regional Court made its decision solely on the fact that the applicant was not a national of the Russian Federation. Additionally, the court failed to verify his application for Russian nationality and its timing to the Federal Migration Service and did not consider the difficult financial situation of his family or his arguments in relation to the charges made against him in the Republic of Belarus. The applicant expressed readiness to accept punishment in accordance with the laws of the Russian Federation if his guilt was proven by the authorities.
The Russian State Prosecutor considered the Court’s decisions both to extradite the applicant and to dismiss his complaint to be lawful and well-founded. The judgment does not provide any more details about the prosecutor’s legal argument or general position in this case.
The Court ruled that Article 56 of the Minsk Convention applied to the current situation. The article provides for the extradition of individuals within the territories of the Republic of Belarus and the Russian Federation to face criminal prosecution for acts punishable under the laws of both contracting parties with penalties involving deprivation of liberty for one year or more. Provisions similar to Article 56 of the Minsk Convention are found in Article 462 of the Russian Federation's Code of Criminal Procedure. Specifically, decisions on a person’s extradition to another country are made by the General Prosecutor of the Russian Federation, as was the case for the applicant.
Without providing much reasoning, the Court came to the conclusion that the decision to extradite the applicant to the Republic of Belarus was made in accordance with the established legal procedure by a competent authority of the Russian Federation.
It was evident to the Court that the applicant is a stateless person who has not acquired Russian nationality, nor has he been recognised as a refugee or granted temporary asylum. The Court noted that the criminal case against him in the Republic of Belarus has not been dismissed and that the statute of limitations has not expired.
The Court also confirmed that the act allegedly committed by the applicant is punishable under the laws of the Russian Federation (specifically under under Article 158 Part 3 of the Criminal Code, with a statute of limitations of 10 years, carrying a potential penalty of deprivation of liberty for more than one year).
The court was satisfied with the guarantees provided by the Republic of Belarus that the applicant would only be prosecuted for the offence for which he was extradited. Furthermore, the court stated the applicant would not “be transferred or extradited to a third state without the consent of the Office of the Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation, would have the freedom to leave the territory of Belarus after the trial and completion of the sentence, and would be afforded full defence rights, including legal assistance. Additionally, he would not be subjected to torture, cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.”
NA
NA
There was no third party intervention in this case. The participation of a prosecutor is obligatory for these types of cases.